What would the decision be, in court re. "I agreed because I was not thinking straight at the time"?

You can not consent to illegal activities.

In the eyes of the legal system a crime is a crime. Consent by the harmed party is irrelevant.

Well, the guy who ate the other guy, who volunteered to be eaten, got convicted of murder anyway.
On the other hand, if you agreed to it beforehand, would not this “vandalisation” become a form of “redecoration”?

I am thinking along the lines of what @ragingloli said – consenting to vandalism is either an art project or a gift.

@johnpowell “You can not consent to illegal activities”

I think it depends how the activities are described… is it still “vandalism” if the person has permission to damage or alter the property? And furthermore, it sounds like you are arguing this from an American legal perspective, while I think the OP is Canadian.

Yes. I am thinking of a bodily harm thing.

You have Matt and Kim that did this on The Block AU and it was perfectly legal.

@johnpowell I think you must have had a specific context in mind when you said…
__You can not consent to illegal activities.__

Because I can think of a gazillions situations where consenting to illegal activities will at the very least make you an accomplice and land you in jail.

I’m thinking where you consent to something like Dr. Kevorkian. Consenting doesn’t get him off-the hook.

@johnpowell I was not thinking of the perpetrators consenting being of concern but the hangers on who agree to go along with his/her plans as you posit that “You can not consent to illegal activities” I say yes you can…many do and they should suffer the consequences of their actions. The Devil made me do it is not a sound legal defense.

I think we read the question differently.

My interpretation was, ” I consent to you beating the shit out of me.” (not legal)

I’m not sure where accomplices came into play. Surely anyone else involved would be complicit. That is obvious.

Twisted logic at best @johnpowell If I give my consent to you to beat the shit out of me would put the event in a whole other legal realm then you sneaking up behind me and blindsiding my skull into mush. The first scenario I asked for that form of pain and was a willing participant the other one I was an innocent victim and would be evaluated in a court of law completely different and with much different consequences. In either situation any witnesses or accomplices would also be held accountable for their actions or inaction’s.

It’s not vandalism if the owner of the property agrees to it.

Caveat emptor

@Cruiser :: Not in the eyes of the law. If they wanted to prosecute they could. I have had this discussion with actual lawyers. That is how I know this.

I want to vandalize your house, i.e break things, make everything unusable. Nothing to do with art or redecoration” @ragingloli
@Cruiser I agree with @johnpowell (except for the 2nd post) this time. Because “If I give my consent to you to beat the shit out of me would put the event in a whole other legal realm then you sneaking up behind me and blindsiding my skull into mush. The first scenario I asked for that form of pain.”
Whether it’s me who asked to be vandalized or be beaten to a pulp (messed up mind self esteem problem) or I’m asking someone to let me beat them to a pulp (only a criminal pschopath or sociopath would think like that imho) ”* ....it’s all messed up big time. Imagine the courts being engaged in such ridiculous, preposterously ridiculous cases!

If the police come across a domestic couple one of them beating up the other they wouldn’t ask the victim “Did you ask to be beaten up?” or ask the abuser “Did you get permission to beat him/her up?”
@Darth_Algar You must be trying to be funny.

@flo

What was funny about my post? I stated a simple fact. It’s not vandalism if the property owner consents to it. If a street artist comes along and graffitis the wall of a building I own and doesn’t have my permission then it’s vandalism. If he asks and I give him permission then it is not vandalism. Not a hard distinction to understand.

@Darth_Algar There is no possible way that you could have read my response just above, to @ragingloli. Im-po-ssi-ble. Right?

@flo

You posted that after my initial post, so no, there’s no possible way I could have read that at the time of my posting.

@Darth_Algar I’m referring to your post after my response to @ragingloli.